“Games as a service” is fraud.
Articles Blog

“Games as a service” is fraud.

September 14, 2019


“Games as a Service”. If you’ve been involved with computer or video games for any length of time you’ve probably come across that phrase. I don’t know what the origin is. Wikpedia’s no help. Look at this first sentence under ‘History’. “The idea of Games as a Service began around 2004 with the introduction of-” blah blah blah that doesn’t matter, that’s already wrong. I mean EverQuest was the first major game
I knew about doing this in ’99 but even before that, I remember hearing
about the Sierra Network from ’91. I really doubt that was even when this started
either, it was probably some MUD. Yeah, before World of Warcraft, there were MUDs,
fun for everyone. “2004”…you’re no help at all
here Wikipedia. And I got sidetracked in the first minute.
Nice. Anyway, what I was getting at is I don’t
know the origin of this phrase, but it’s so thoroughly entered the vernacular, that I’m honestly wondering if it’s the result
of some subtle propaganda campaign. I say that because it’s such a harmless
sounding phrase but it hides a terrible if not illegal
business practice. And that bring me to the title: “Games as a Service is Fraud”. Now that sounds clickbait-y, and,
I guess it is but, I’m not exaggerating. I mean it. Unfortunately, it’s not the kind of fraud
I can easily explain in one sentence. So it’s not like changing the odometer
on a car then covering it up and selling it
as though you never did that. That’s easy fraud.
Anyone understands that. This is a more sophisticated kind. Like how even now, a lot of people
are still confused on how Goldman Sachs broke the law leading up to the 2008
finanical crash and how a lot of people should have gone to prison. This is more like that. Now I’ll warn you, this video is going to
be long, and could get boring in spots, but, it’s necessary. See, this video is my declaration of war
on Games as a Service. I’m going up against years of pushed
narrative here, this isn’t gonna be easy. I have to explain everything as a way
to provide ammo to the troops. And even though it’s gonna be long,
I’m gonna say a lot. You know how some court cases drag on
weeks or months? Well this is me putting my entire case
in this video. So however long it is, it’s me saying it all. I’m going to explain what Games as a Service is, why it’s fraud, address any counterarguments, and most importantly, what can be done about it. I have a plan sort of. Oh and I think it’s Games as a Service “is”
fraud and not “are” fraud because it’s referring to the singular practice
“Games as a Service”. But I guess you could also literally have
Games as a Service “are” something. I really don’t know if- So let’s jump right in:
What is “Games as a Service?” Well, Wikipedia defines it as Ah ha ha! Gotcha! No, we’re not doing that. They had their chance. I was hoping they would make this easy on me. Nope. Gamasutra defines it as Uhh… This long winded philisophical ideal. Ok, yeah, looks like I’m gonna have to
do this myself. Ok, first, let’s get something out of the way. Because this isn’t confusing enough, “Games as a Service” is not the same as
a “game service”. A “game service” is usually a rental system. So if you pay a company twenty bucks a month
and can rent games or have them streamed to you, but you can also buy them outright somewhere, then that’s not what I’m talking about.
That’s not fraud, that’s fine. But “Games as a Service”, how do we define that? Well, it’s a business practice, but what? Well if you’re a gamer, you probably have
an idea of what it is so let’s list some common traits and see if we
can narrow it down to what actually defines it. Here’s my list–let’s go down the line. “Online only”. Yes, I’d say that one defines
every use of Games as a Service. Now some games have downloadable content
that you can run offline, but that’s not what the industry means
when they refer to this. In fact, another term for Games as a
Service is “live service games”. In other words, you’re connected online,
so it’s live. But hey, I’ll give another freebie. If offline Games as a Service games exist,
then those are not fraud. So hey, “Oblivion” horse armor Not fraud. This is actually a great baseline if you want
to determine how fair or not you think I’m being toward game companies. This says something
about where my standards are these days. But back to defining things, we’ll say, “Yes,
every Games as a Service is online only.” However, not every online game is Games
as a Service. We’ll come back to that in a minute. “Extra online features” This is stuff like stat tracking,
matchmaking, player messaging, and so on. Well Games as a Service usually have
these, but they’re by no means a guarantee. Plus, regular games can have these too. Player messaging and voice chat go way back. Stat tracking certainly happened in
offline games. Matchmaking was usually third party software
in the past so I think it’s safe to say none of those
define “Games as a Service”. “Microtransactions”. And you may not believe this, but NO,
those are NOT what define Games as a Service! Here are a few Games as a Service that
had NO microtransactions whatsoever. However, I will say the overwhelming
majority of Games as a Service DO have microtransactions and this is the number one reason companies really like this practice. However, since exceptions do exist,
this is not actually what defines it. “Subscription fees”. Very few games still have these, so, no. However, we have that trick again. Most Games as a Service do not have
a subscription fee, but all games with a subscription fee are
Games as a Service. Get it? “Frequent updates”. Well a lot of good Games as a Service
have these, but again, it’s by no means what defines them. Plenty of Games as a Service go by years
with no updates at all so, nope, that’s not it either. And, “massive multiplayer games”. Nope, still not it. On one hand, you have some Games as a Service
that are intended for a small number of players, on the other hand, you’ve had some gigantic
games that are not this practice. The multiplayer mod for Just Cause 2 has had over 1,800 simultaneous players
in the game. Yet it is NOT considered “Games as a
Service”. MMO games are usually Games as a Service,
but, not what defines it. Okay, so wow. The only definition that survived is Games
as a Service are online only. and even that one has a caveat. See, some games are just meant to be played
online. If you play the game “Starsiege: Tribes” the only way to really play it, is to
connect to other people. In essence, it’s an online only game. Yet it is not Games as a Service.
You know why? Because YOU’RE still the one in control. Games as a Service means the company is
providing you the “service” of allowing you to play your game. And yes, I am being facetious. You didn’t used to need “permission” for that. Now people will debate what Games as a
Service should mean but this is the real world, hard definition. “Games as a Service” means the business
practice of players not having control of whether they can play a game due to a
company withholding that function. That it all it is, in its purest,
most distilled form. Oh sure, they usually have other stuff on
this list but none of those other traits could survive
the definition test. In fact, I’d say this definition isn’t even
the intent of Games as a Service. But it is what defines it. If it doesn’t have this, it is NOT Games
as a Service. Okay! Fraud time! So now we have a concrete definition of
Games as a Service. But why is it fraud? Well, the simplest answer is it’s being sold
as something it’s not. I’ll break it down. But first we have to understand the difference
between a “good” and a “service”. Products are defined as “services” or
“goods”. A “good” is something you buy and own,
a “service” is an action performed for you. So if you buy a hammer, it’s a “good”. It’s a thing. It’s yours. But if you get a haircut, that’s a service. They didn’t just hand you your haircut in a
box they used scissors to deliver the desired
result. Or, so I’m told. And again, I have to rail on Wikipedia here. Since they define goods as “something tangible”
then later say they’re NOT always tangible. Good job contradicting yourself in the first
sentence guys! Whatever, that second part is correct. So things like digital movies you buy are
intangible goods. You can’t touch a movie. But it’s still sold like a physical good. Well guess what? Most games are goods too. Even Games as a Service. So yes, I just said Games as a Service
are not services. I’ll get to that. But, I have to concede on one point. If it’s a game that has a subscription fee that
you pay each month like World of Warcraft under most laws, those ARE services and, I don’t think I can make the case those
are fraud. Those win this round. But, you know what? We can work with that.
Since that’s what, five games now? Eh, maybe ten. But let’s try to establish legally that
Games as a Service are not services. Now of course the law’s different in every
country, but we’ll cover some major ones. Now I can’t take credit for most of this part. I found bits and crumbs of this on my own but then I stumbled into a mother lode of
information on why games are goods and you own them. A highly researched user, Delicieuxz created the best layman’s explanation on this
topic I’ve seen in the Linus Tech Tips forum. Oh, hi Linus. Now I admit, this is a colorful title, but
putting that aside, he has some good logic. So let’s look at the abridged version. “A license is a right to use a property or
intellectual property that belongs to somebody else.” “When you read ‘this software is licensed, not
sold’ in a software end user license agreement” “‘this software’ refers to the software
intellectual property” “and not the copy of that intellectual property
that you’ve purchased via a software license.” “The software intellectual property is
licensed, not sold.” “The license is sold, not licensed or leased.” A little confusing there, but let’s keep going. “All the mass produced items you’ve bought
follow the same rules.” “You are purchasing a one-off copy of the
intellectual property of those things” “and there is a transfer of ownership over
those instances” “and you become the sole owner of that
instance of intellectual property.” “You own it and have full property rights
over it.” Okay, just so everybody’s with me, he’s
saying if you buy a copy of… Half-Life you don’t own the rights to the Half-Life
franchise. You can’t sell additional copies of it. But you DO own YOUR COPY of Half-Life. A lot of goods are like this. If you buy
a car you don’t own the manufacturing and design
right to that car model. But you do own YOUR CAR. It’s a basic concept. I said before I’m going up against a narrative well one myth you hear sometimes is you
don’t “own” any of your software. What he’s doing here is explaining why that’s
almost always false. Turns out you have ownership rights after all! Who knew? Next he says there are two types of software
licenses: perpetual, and subscription licenses. Perpetual ones last forever. So that copy of Mega Man that your brother
has in the attic? That’s a perpetual license. And this is why World of Warcraft gets a
free pass for now. They want 15 bucks a month. That’s as clear
as day a subscription license. If you’re not paying a subscription fee for
your game then it’s being bought under a perpetual
license. That’s a really key point, a whole lot of
things are gonna come back to this. “A perpetual license is a product” “and whenever it’s sold it undergoes transfer
of ownership upon the point of sale.” “Ownership is what establishes one’s decision
making authority over the thing.” “To sell something is to relinquish it as
one’s property” “and to relinquish all of one’s decision
making authority over that thing” “to the person who bought it.” “Then the seller no longer has any rightful
say over anything regarding that instance” “of software represented by its perpetual
license.” So there it is. If you only have to pay once, and it’s not
a subscription fee for your game then by definition it’s being sold under
a perpetual license. Under most country’s laws, that means it’s
a GOOD, and NOT a service. This is why I wonder if “Games as a Service”
is a deliberate propaganda term. It means the EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT IT SAYS! But I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking “this is just some guy on
the internet saying words” “that doesnt prove anything.” Fair point. But you know what helps a legal argument? If you back up what you’re saying with legal
documents that say the same thing. And that’s exactly what he does. For
multiple countries. “The European Union’s highest court, the
Court of Justice, has ruled that software” “sold via a perpetual license represents a
good rather than a service” “and the purchaser becomes the exclusive owner
of that instance, just like a physical good.” Then he links to the court documents for
UsedSoft v. Oracle and a more professional explanation of what
that means. Next up, Canada. He gives an outdated link but I found this court case which apparently
rules Software as a Service is a good As explained in this article. They even refer to Software as a Service! I love it when it’s black and white like that. And later he revises things saying Canada follows the World Intellectual
Property Organization’s International Classification of Goods and
Services Guidelines. Yeah you know we’re having fun now with a
name like that. Anyway, they say they’re goods too. Next, Australia. You may have heard of this
one. In the case of the Australian Competition
and Consumer Commission v. Valve Corporation Australia rules that sure enough, games
are goods. You have to love this quote in the conclusion “Each of Valve’s challenges to the applicability
of the Australian Consumer Law fails.” Yada yada–“Valve supplied goods, which are
defined as including computer software.” And then we get to the United States. Listen, the United States hard mode when it
comes to this topic. In the lower courts, nobody agrees on anything. In 2008 in the court case Vernor v. Autodesk a federal judge in Washington State said that
yes, you own the software. Then in 2010, that was appealed to the Ninth
Circuit which said no, you don’t own the software and
you have to follow the EULA rules. But then there was an amicus brief filed with it
which said yeah, this could easily be abused could harm preservation, this is potentially
a dangerous precedent, and hey Congress why don’t you do something about this? But even then, that decision was just from
the Ninth Circuit states, not the entire US Before I keep going, look at this! That giant headline saying you don’t own
anything. That’s misleading. This is what I mean when I talk about a
narrative. Especially because in 2013 the Supreme Court
ruled on a different case saying people in the U.S can resell
copyrighted goods which includes software licenses, and the
first sale doctrine applies which states a seller retains no decision
making authority over a good once they have sold it to someone else. And as a side note, the official link to this
court document was down. I had to find it using the Wayback Machine so I guess that doesn’t bode too well for the
Supreme Court, but, whatever. In the US, games as services being goods
aren’t quite proven but there’s a lot of precedent that implies
they are. Delicieuxz says it best: “A specific matter of software ownership has
never gone to the USA’s Supreme Court” “and it’s likely that software publishers
would prefer that it doesn’t.” He’s damn right they do! “Because in all likeliness the verdict will
be the same as it was in the European Union” “and in Australia. Because this matter has
never gone to the USA’s Supreme Court” “and because regional court verdicts have
conflicted with each other in their conclusions” “it is baseless for anyone to claim that people
in the USA don’t own their purchased software.” So again, if there’s no subscription fee,
you own your games. Well so what? Just because Games as a Service isn’t actually
a service, that doesn’t mean anything. It’s just a name for a business practice. Where does the fraud come in? Well the “fraud” comes from that whole
ownership thing. Remember: a seller retains NO decision making
authority over a product once they have sold it to someone else. Now some of you may know that I’m huge
advocate against killing games. By “killing games,” I mean the practice of
a company’s actions leaving a game completely unplayable by anyone who bought it. This is also known as “bricking” a game. Well killing games, and Games as a Service
are handcuffed together You almost don’t have one without the other. See, all Games as a Service depend on you
connecting to a server controlled by a company. That’s fine while the game is running, but eventually most companies decide they’re
not making enough money on the game anymore to justify the server running. So they shut it down. Once THAT happens, every single person who
bought the game can never play it again. If I sold you a copy of a game on disc then next month while you were sleeping I
snuck into your house and broke the disc I would go to jail. In practical terms, that’s almost exactly
what Games as a Service is. Companies engaged in this practice almost
always destroy your product AFTER they’ve sold it to you. And I keep saying this “almost always”
happens, there’s a reason for that. Some volunteers and I have put together a
list of every game we could find that has been shut down, and how that was
handled. Now if anything this is the small list since I filtered out games like you see here just
to bring focus on the bigger problem cases. We came up with 122 titles that mostly meet
that criteria. Now this list may not be 100% accurate. It
can be difficult to verify some information but I’m guessing it’s at least 95% accurate. And it’s probably the most extensive data
collected on this topic to date. So, out of 122 titles, how many times did
the companies do something to either A) Give customers a chance to run their game
after shutdown, or B) Give a full refund, no strings attached. Well from my best count, here it is. Yeah. That’s five titles. Or in other words, about 4% of all
Games as a Service. So hey, I made a clickbait-y title, I’ll
fess up. If we’re being completely honest, “Games as
a Service” is not fraud. It’s only fraud about 96% of the time. So if anyone says I’m exaggerating how bad
all this is, it’s true. I’m exaggerating 4%. And who knows? We could have missed one! I’m making all this public, you’re welcome
to double check the data. In fact, I’m not sure which of those games
were on a subscription license at the time of shutdown, so you might even
be able to get that number down to 95 hey, maybe 94%. Oh, and some of these titles you can
actually still run usually due to illicit server emulators. But
those are cases where the companies did NOTHING to help, and it was in spite of the company’s
actions. Not because of them. More on that in a bit. So I’m calling this fraud because of the
reality, and the intent. Just because your game doesn’t run
doesn’t make it fraud. There could be bugs, the hardware could go
bad. I’m not talking about quirks, accidents,
forces of nature. But with Games as a Service, the product
is DESIGNED to fail as soon as they shut down the server. The fraud begins once they purposefully
take away access to your product. Games as a Service is fraud because it
involves selling perpetual licenses that are in practice, NOT perpetual. The decision making authority over the product
is being removed from the buyer. Customers buy games with the expectation
that they will function. If 100% of all copies sold of a game cease to
function because of deliberate interference from the seller AFTER the point of sale, how
can that be considered an honest practice? Now the opposition would say this isn’t fraud,
because you were sold a perpetual license and just because the company breaks your
game, it doesn’t mean you lost your license. You are still free to “repair” the game,
after they break it. I say this is a disingenuous argument on
multiple levels. If somebody sells you a bike, and then
later you get a flat tire yes, your product no longer works, and it
takes some effort to repair it. But that’s something the average person can
be reasonably expected to do. Or hey, take it to a repair shop! More importantly the company that sold you the bike didn’t
come to your house and puncture the tire. I see that as an important distinction. Now when a Game as a Service stops working which again, I want to emphasize is a
deliberate act NO ONE on EARTH could be “reasonably
expected” to fix that. The reason for that is two-fold. First, it takes specialized programming
knowledge in order to recreate the portions of the server that were lost. Again, the way these games work is most of
the data is on the customer’s computer. But the company hosting the game has key
information about how to run it. Where things spawn, logic routines, and
so on. If you want, you can almost think of this
as the “body” and this as the “brain”. When they shut the “brain” down here a large portion of the game is now missing,
and it’s unplayable. In order to run the game again, the person
would have to write a new “brain”. I mean–server! Now that is an exhorbitant amount of work,
and takes a lot of specialized knowledge. I would estimate only 5% of the population
is even capable of doing that. However, it is possible. Whether that’s a reasonable expectation of
buyers to repair their product is debatable. I think it isn’t, but that is NOTHING
compared to the next part. Programming a new server is difficult enough. But companies will also encrypt their data in
order to protect against hackers and piracy. This is known as “Digital Rights Management,”
or DRM. Now that’s reasonable while the product is
still being sold, but once it’s shut down then this is the equivalent of locking things
up and throwing away the key. I’ve talked to a developer for a resurrected
game server emulator and he said they had a cryptography
expert helping them decrypt the code and even then, it took them years. So if you were qualified to crack codes
like what the Nazis were using and win World War II in Europe, then yes, you
might be qualified to “repair” your game. I’m really not exaggerating. Not only is that such a small percentage of
the population capable of doing that but even for them, that in no way can be
considered reasonable. For most people, I’m talking 99.9% or more it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to repair their
game after shutdown. So, not literally impossible, but, again,
I’m rounding. But let’s try to shore this up a little
legally. And again, the United States is hard mode. Some of you may have heard of the term
“planned obsolescence”. That’s the practice of designing goods to
intentionally break faster in hopes that you’ll buy a new one so they
can make more money. Best I can tell, this is perfectly legal in
the United States unfortunately. But there’s a subset of that called
“programmed obsolescence”. See unlike planned obsolescence, which just
increases the odds the product will break over time, programmed obsolescence
ENSURES it will break on purpose, usually at a specific time. And it’s not clear if THAT is legal in the
US or not. There have been some cases on it. Like class
action lawsuit Jackie Blennis v. HP in 2008. Charges were pressed against Hewlett-Packard for
designing ink cartridges to shut down prematurely. HP denied any wrongdoing, and yet awarded the
complaintants $5 million of credit to shut them up. Yeah, I’m sure they did that just to be nice. Otherwise, why wouldn’t they fight it and
maintain their innocence? Especially since they got hit with another
class action lawsuit, San Miguel v. HP in 2016 for updating firmware on printers to stop
accepting third party cartridges. In other words, breaking functionality. THIS time they were guilty of wrongdoing
and had to pay out $1.5 million. Now these both imply that programmed
obsolescence could be illegal if challenged however in both cases the reasoning behind
the charges doesn’t tie directly to that. So these aren’t the strongest legal
precendents in my opinion. The strongest legal argument I DID find was
in 2017 in Impression v. Lexmark. The Supreme Court ruled that you have
ownership of your product and are free to do with it as you please even if patents still apply to it that
control its behavior. While that’s still a bit of a stretch to say
programmed obsolescence isn’t legal I thought these lines from the ruling were noteworthy. “Even if the restrictions in Lexmark’s
contracts with its customers” “were clear and enforceable under contract law” “they do not entitle Lexmark to retain patent
rights in an item that it has elected to sell.” “Once a patentee sells an item, it has
secured that reward, and the patent laws” “provide no basis for restraining the use and
enjoyment of the product.” That might be a key sentence. I would call shutting down a game so that
the person who bought it has no way to ever run it again “restraining the use and
enjoyment of the product,” wouldn’t you? There might be something there. But, this hasn’t been tested in court, so
most of this is in a legal gray zone. That means the law hasn’t specifically said
if something is legal or not so everybody has to guess based on other
laws. I’m obviously on the “this is fraud” side because if the law says one thing, and the
outcome is the exact opposite then something’s breaking down. But how does this actually play out?
Let’s see. Do you own your game? Theoretically, yes. You technically never lose ownership of your
perpetual license. It’s yours. In practice? Unclear. There’s been no higher court ruling on
whether Games as a Service infringes upon your perpetual license. THIS is what I’m trying to change. In real world terms, also known as the
only part I actually care about NO. If no normal person can ever be expected
to use their product again after the company disables it, that is
certainly effective loss of ownership. Seller intent? NO. Games as a Service are designed to
have their functionality removed at a later, undisclosed date AND the data is encrypted to prevent you
from restoring it yourself. It doesn’t get any more deliberate to remove
your ownership than that. Games as a Service is a situation where the
outcome is the exact opposite of the intent of the law. This is why the myth that why you DON’T own
your games keeps persisting! People are just saying what they’re seeing
with their own eyes! Laws are MEANINGLESS if they’re not enforced! And, that’s all I have for U.S law. But fortunately, things are a little more
optimistic in other countries. In Germany, there’s a political party that
initiated a study to try and reduce planned obsolescence using existing laws
on the books. So kind of like what I’m doing. Some parts I found noteworthy. “Introduction of minimum standards for
repair.” “Obligations to provide repair instructions.” In France, the Hamon Law was introducted in
2014 to more or less make planned obsolescence
illegal. Except that it looks like that it only
applies to physical goods so there may or may not be an opening there. And hey, it’s being put to the test suing
printer companies Epson, HP, Canon and Brother for violating this law. Would be great if they could establish
a precedent for software too. Boy, printers are the games industry of the
real world, huh? And in Europe in general the European Parliament accepted a resolution
to lengthen consumer goods’ and software’s longevity to combat planned
obsolescence. And back to Australia the Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission has consumer guarantees including that your product is safe, LASTING,
and with no faults. Well, Games as a Service are safe, so, you
know, one out of three. Now it also says this doesn’t apply if you
knew of, or were made aware of the faults before you bought the product. This is another gray area again. The company usually DOES tell you Games as
a Service could cease working at any time in the end user license agreement. But is this really following the intent of
the law? If the company is creating the defect in the
product on purpose and does it OVER and OVER again to the point where selling intentionally
defective products is their whole business model that still smells like fraud to me, and
should at least be examined. Now I don’t know the details of these laws
or movements since it’s hard enough for me to research
this as it is, let alone in different languages and it looks like they’re mostly focused
on physical goods but for God’s sake, we’ve got to get software
on board this train. Just requiring companies to provide “repair
instructions” would be NIGHT and DAY compared to where
we are now. The bottom line is, it looks like a lot of
people are getting upset over companies ripping customers off and the law is playing catch-up with what
technology is doing. Games as a Service are goods in these
countries which means there’s a real chance they could
be protected under the law. The INTENT of these laws is almost identical
to my war on Games as a Service. Software has got to piggyback onto these laws
and get examined by the right governing bodies. And THAT is IT for LEGAL ARGUMENTS! AHHHHHH! I’m taking a break. You want to take a break? I’m taking a break. [8-bit music playing] Okay, so those were the legal arguments. Yeah, that was…fun. But I need to cover EVERYTHING, so,
let’s get conceptual! Maybe you’re thinking, “Okay, so what if the
law says games are goods?” “Maybe they’re really services and the law’s
just outdated?” Okay. Let’s pretend the law doesn’t exist.
We’re writing it fresh. If that was the case, then Games as a
Service would be unlike any other service that
exists. I’m not joking. Every other service I can think of, has at
least ONE of the following conditions. One, an expectation of how long it lasts. If you pay an electric bill, it’s usually
for a month at a time. Or if you go to an amusement park. Your
ticket lasts the day, or the season. The point being, everybody knows when the
service is over and it ends or you have to renew it. Two, there’s a general expectation of when
it’s done. If you pay roofers to fix your roof you may have no idea how long that will take.
But you know when it’s fixed. There’s a rough idea of when the service is finished. Three, there are real-world limitations
towards keeping the service going. Some services can go on forever. If I rent a plot of land I don’t have to do anything but collect my
money each month pretty much. Hence number one here. In fact I’ve had a landlord before where at one point, I wasn’t sure if he
was alive or dead. But, the service kept going! But most services require real resources
to continue. If you go to a concert, and you’re having
a good time, and just want to stay Well that’s great, but the band has to stop
sometime. Eventually, they’re going to run out of coke. Maybe you can stump me, but I couldn’t think
of ONE service that didn’t require at least ONE of those
conditions. EXCEPT, Games as a Service. Hence, even on a conceptual level, they’re
NOT SERVICES. Here, I’ll show you. “Expectation of how long it lasts.” Well, subscription games like World of
Warcraft yes, this win this round too. Damnit! Subscription games really are services, and
they’re not fraud. I’ll have to get them on the final round. So besides those few games that still require
a monthly fee to play no, this doesn’t apply. If there’s an expectation for how long
Games as a Service last then what is it? The Culling 2 lasted a week and a half. Meridian 59 has been going on over 22 years. That’s no help! Well what do the games themselves tell you? Well most don’t tell you anything. They just say they can be shut down at any
time, for any reason. Some say they can be shut down at any time,
plus 30 days. Even then, I’d argue nobody buying the game is actually expecting it to stop working
after 30 days. Now I’d say there’s no standard here, but
that’s not true. There IS a standard for games. The traditional standard is forever! There are people who speedrun Super Mario
Brothers. That game’s over 30 years old. So, yeah, “forever,” that’s a good standard. Games as a Service is trying to push a
new standard. Except it doesn’t have one! Just that it’s less, for you! Oh, except for The Secret World, and,
Fallout 76. They’re both saying you’ll be able to play
them forever. Umm… Okay? Well, for every OTHER Game as a Service
that DOESN’T last forever this is a concrete example of how your
rights are being taken away from you. We’ve gone from “play forever,” to
“whatever the seller feels like”. So, no, this does not apply. Expectation of when it’s done. Yeah, let me ask you, when is somebody
“done” with a game? When they beat it? What if they want to play it again? What if it’s a game that has no ending,
it’s just sort of an ongoing thing? What if they want to come back and play it
after a few years? Exactly, there’s no standard at all here. Well, no, that’s not right either. There IS a standard for games. The old standard used to be that YOU own
the game so, YOU decide when you’re done with it. And that’s gonna be different for every
person. So no “general” standard. GNAHH! Real world limitations. Okay let me explain this one. Remember that body and brain analogy I made
to the server and clients earlier? Well the vast majority of videogames
throughout history have been sold with both the body, AND
the brain. You got the whole package, so you could keep
the game running as long as you wanted. Now with the server and client model they’re set up so that the brain here needs
maintenance by real people and computer hardware, and electricity
bills, and so on. But that’s a CHOICE, not a NECESSITY. See at their core, videogames are CODE. They’re NUMBERS. They don’t “wear out” over time. The number “three” works just as well now as
it did thousands of years ago. It just looks a little different. The containers that hold the data can wear
out but it can also be copied from one container
to the next. So there’s an infinite supply! Don’t worry! We’re not gonna run outta
numbers! They’re always on tap! Now the server is usually maintained LIKE a
service while it’s running but once it’s shut down, it COULD just be
copied over here and someone ELSE could get it running. Companies almost never DO that, but the point
is the limitation isn’t real. It’s artificial. Somebody made it up. They
could just as easily undo it. In fact, it’s easier to undo this, rather
than set this split up in the first place. Again, most games don’t even have this limitation. It’s not a perfect analogy, but imagine
a natural park. You may pay to go there as a service, and
there will be people maintaining the roads and trails, running a visitor center,
et cetera, and that takes real resources. But if the park runs out of money and shuts
down the park doesn’t cease to exist. The trees are still there. The mountains and rocks are all still there. We don’t erect an indestructable dome around
the park, that allows nothing in or out and can survive a direct missile strike and then tell everyone with a lifetime pass
that they can never enter the park again. But that’s almost exactly how Games as a
Service works. This is not a good standard. I hope one of these analogies is sticking. Anyway the point to all that is even without
the law telling us what’s what Games as a Service are really not services,
they’re goods! So they should be treated as such! But hey, maybe you’re saying they’re a
weird exception and should still be treated as services. Okay. Why? I usually look at the law and rules from the
perspective of “what’s the actual outcome?” Well the end outcome of most Games as a
Service is that they’re destroyed, and can never
be played again. Geez that seems like a really high price
to pay to treat them as services. Now you might be thinking, “Well yeah
that sucks but then we also get anti cheat measures,
stat tracking, matchmaking, easy updates and [interruptive stuttering] See, that’s the narrative talking. We can STILL HAVE all that stuff, AND,
NOT destroy the game! The narrative likes to frame it like you
can’t have the good without the bad. That’s what’s known as a “false dichotomy,”
and it’s just…wrong! It’s like how you can simultaneously be
FOR the circus coming to town but AGAINST clowns stabbing people. I know that sounds impossible to some people,
but it’s not that hard a concept. Companies don’t have to give up ANYTHING
while they’re supporting the game. It’s only once they shut the game down that
they need to stop treating them like a service and give the customers their goods. Now you might be thinking “Yeah, but that’s
probably a bunch of work right?” Well, it can be, but I’m not an expert. So I talked to someone who is. I asked that developer who worked on a
server emulator how much work would it take for companies
to provide the bare minimum to give users a reasonable chance to create a server emulator once the game
shuts down. Well, he said there were two basic options. I’m not even gonna go over these, but you
can see them here. Now this would NOT be enough for a playable
game. This would be more like those “repair
notes,” like it was mentioned in those European planned obsolescence laws. But okay, this doesn’t seem like too much
work so I asked him how long would it take the
developers to do this. He said it depended on how well the game was
written, and how competent the developers are but anywhere from less than an hour,
to a few days. Okay, so NOW let’s compare. Here are the total pros and cons of having
Games as a Service, the way we do it now. Under pros, the developers save anywhere from
less than hour, to a few days work. Alright, that’s a positive. And under cons, everyone who paid for the game along with anyone in the future interested in
the game, will never be able to run it again. Hmm. No this doesn’t seem like a good idea to me. In fact, this looks like a really bad deal
for everyone. In order for this to be a good deal I’d say we need a situation like The Day
After Tomorrow where these people are hiding in a library
from the worst blizzard ever and need to burn some books so they stay
warm and don’t die. See to me, THAT looks like a better
trade off for destroying media. I’m pretty sure Games as a Service
doesn’t save lives. Now I understand if you think I’m framing
this unfairly because it sounds kind of crazy that THIS is the
entire reason the industry is defrauding customers and destroying products with millions of
dollars and thousands of hours of work behind them. But this is the only honest reason I’ve seen. It reminds me how in the 60’s, auto manufacturers
fought against seatbelts being mandatory because even though they saved lives, they
did cost some money and auto makers didn’t want that. I won’t lie THIS does cost SOME money to do. But not much at all. I would guess well under 1% of the total
budget. It’s certainly cheaper than making a game
a service to begin with. So even without the law If THIS is the ENTIRE REASON games are not
preserved and customers can never use their products
again I don’t find that particularly compelling. It’s almost like if there are no laws on this then there SHOULD be. And that brings me to the final argument and this one I can even use on World of
Warcraft finally. Now this may sound crazy, considering the
first half of this video but I don’t actually care about this topic
because the industry is breaking the law that’s just a coincidence. I only covered that legal mess because there
could be some real power behind that. I think the law is going to be the only way
out of this but that’s not my main motivation here. No, I care because Games as a Service
is destroying games. Quite successfully too. Every once in a while, you’ll hear people
ask if games are art. I don’t have an answer on that but, I think it’s pretty clear that games
are creative experiences often worthy of preservation. So I’ll say “art” just to keep it simple. I mean come on, if you’re looking at stuff
like this and are saying “NO. This has no artistic
value at all” you’re just being grumpy. You know David Bowie’s in a game, right? Anyway the point here is that Games as a
Service is more than JUST a consumer rights issue. Even though the quality ratio is debatable games contain ideas, art, often dialogue and ways of interacting that aren’t present
in any other medium. They’re more than JUST products. If I buy a toaster that’s designed to fail well, I still think that’s wrong but I can always buy another toaster, and
still have toast. Whereas games are unique experiences. You can’t replace them any more than you can
replace books in a library with different authors. You can’t replace Dracula with Twilight and say nothing was lost because they’re
both about vampires. It doesn’t work that way. I’m not going to spend much time explaining
why saving art has value because for me, it’s innate. If you don’t understand why art or creative
works have value I probably can’t reach you on that. Maybe a philosopher can field that one. For me, it’s just an instinctive response. Now of course we can’t save ALL artistic
works, that’s just not practical. There’s too many. Plus some of them suck. But we can decide for ourselves what’s worth
saving, and what’s not. Games as a Service denies that chance to
everyone. When I see a game with obvious creative
value being destroyed this is what comes to mind Now the reality is both better and worse
than that. The part that’s better is that games that
are destroyed are far less likely to contain ideas that
are so powerful some see them as a threat. The part that’s worse, is that publishers
are way more successful at destroying games than oppressors ever were at destroying
books. Or, you know, at least within the past few
thousand years. Even at book burning rallies people didn’t burn every existing copy
of a book they hated. And yet, a lot of Games as a Service have
a 100% death rate. There is no comparison to that in modern
media. I guess in the early days of film we lost
a lot of stuff because the studios didn’t know any better. That’s what scares me. Now we DO know better, and yet we’re still
going backwards. It’s like watching a driver take a bus over
a cliff and he KNOWS he’s taking it over the cliff.
It’s a kind of madness. And speaking of modern media, you can rent
movies or stream music as a service but you can ALSO BUY THEM and KEEP them as GOODS. I guess some TV shows or radio shows you
can’t buy, but guess what? You can back them up yourself. Legally! Not to dip back into the law again but that’s what THIS case was all about. Technically, it’s already legal to back up
Games as a Service is multiple countries. Even in the USA! But if game companies make that impossible
then what does that matter? I care about reality, not fantasy rights! I want to say Games as a Service are the
only form of modern media without real world limitations, that you
CANNOT PRESERVE. It’s kind of amazing, in a terrible way. And that’s what all this comes down to for
me. Even if Games as a Service passed every
legal test, which it hasn’t then the law would be wrong. Games as a Service, the way we do it now permanently destroys games, and all the work
the creators put into them it’s entirely preventable, and serves
almost no purpose for anyone. It’s just wrong. The whole point of laws is to have a more
civilized society. Wanton destruction of art that others are
trying to preserve and have paid for is not civilized. That’s why this needs to stop, even for
subscription games. We just have to stop it. [“Stop it.”] Stop it. [“STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT!”] And that’s my case! So I would be almost done, but but you know how the internet is. Somebody can make a good point but then somebody else comes along, nitpicks
something and then says “debunked” “all done”. Uh uh. I mean that may still happen but, I want to wreck that before it even
gets started. Now if you’re already onboard with what I’m
saying you can skip straight to the end. Yeah, see, there you go. But Games as a Service is a PLAGUE of
an idea so I need to burn out every last inch of it
I can. So I’m going into overtime to show just how
weak the opposition is. I think it’s so bad it’s indefensible. But hey, judge for yourself. So here are my rebuttals to every major
counterargument or concern I can think of BEFORE they happen. Here we go! Let’s start with the big one. “Games as a Service is legal because you
agree to the terms stated” “in the End User License Agreement.” Well, the simple answer is yes, those terms apply, as long as they don’t
contradict anything the law says. If they say something that is not legal,
then those documents mean nothing. Nothing. That’s why I spent half the video focusing
on the law and almost didn’t care what those documents said. If the law says they’re wrong that’s all there is to it. It’s not even
a debate. The end user license agreements are
irrelevant to this conversation. That’s what that Lexmark Supreme Court
case was showing. They simply DON’T determine the law. It’s good to think of those agreements like
“club rules.” So if you’re at the Moose Lodge and the rules
say you have to make an antler face before you can speak at the meetings well, then those are the club rules. You don’t actually lose your right to speak. But let’s crush this argument a little
further. Maybe you think the law is wrong and the customer assumed the risk of shutdown
when they bought the game. Okay. Well then when was it supposed to shut down? I don’t think there’s been one case in the
history of Games as a Service where the company told the customer WHEN the
game was gonna shut down upon release. That means the agreements are made in
bad faith because the company is purposefully
withholding information from the customer. Now personally, I think that’s a weaker
argument that doesn’t get to the core issue but it’s still true. Game shutdowns are not a force of nature. They are entirely within the company’s
control. In order to defend the end user license
agreement you would have to say that companies are
entitled to sell you a product break that product after the point of sale not tell customers when that’s going to
happen, even though it’s in their control and then, prevent customers from repairing
the product after it’s broken. That is NOT good business, that is predatory. Good luck defending that. Okay, here’s another big one. “Buying a game entitles you to the client
software” “you are not entitled to the server
software.” Technically, yes, that is true. But that’s not the whole story. Part of what I was trying to show in the
legal portion is that there’s a precedent, if not laws that customers ARE entitled to a working
product. OR a reasonable chance of repairing one. So, no, the customer is not entitled to
the server software. But since they ARE entitled to a working
product that usually means the server software also. Doesn’t have to! The company could patch the game for it to
run offline instead. In fact I have a really easy test, that sums
up my whole stance on this. Step one: Company sells the game. Step two: The company conducts business
any way they want to. Step three: Company support ends And step four: the customer has a reasonable
chance to run the game after shutdown. What the company does in step two here
is a “black box”. I am in NO WAY trying to dictate how they
run their business there. I’m only concerned with step four here Can the customer run the game? In Games as a Service, the answer is
currently “NO”. This is what it’s all about, right here. Notice it doesn’t say “release the server
software”. It says give the customers a chance to
run their game that they paid for. HOW the company does that is up to them. In fact if you get confused by anything
I’ve said in this video and get lost somewhere, just look at that
chart. This chart is all you really need to know. Simple. Easy. I guess I should have put that at the
beginning. Oops. “What you’re proposing would require businesses
to support their games forever.” “That’s unreasonable.” No they wouldn’t. In fact, I’m in favor of companies ending
support for a game ANY TIME THEY WANT. That’s why an end of life plan is essential. If you’re a company, and you end support for
your game but then the customer still has a reasonable
chance to play it after that? That’s it! You’re done! You don’t have to
support anything! What needs to STOP, is support being a
REQUIREMENT to play the game. THAT’S what Games as a Service is. “If Games as a Service have to be treated
as goods” “it will hurt creativity of developers and
restrain them.” Well first, I’d like to point out the
industry made games as goods for decades and I didn’t see a lot of shortage of
creativity myself. [gibberish singing] And again, we’re talking up to a few extra
days of work. I don’t see how that would “kill creativity” unless the point of the game was for it
to die. Well wouldn’t you know it, we’ve had a game
just like that “The Flock”. This was a multiplayer game that the
developers actually wanted to die. After a fixed amount of player deaths, it
was going to shut down forever and they told people that right from the
beginning. Now I would actually allow an exemption for
this game because I think there’s an argument to be
made that this was performance art. See, all other Games as a Service they don’t die because the creators WANT
them to. It happens because they become unprofitable
and they handle the shutdowns irresponsibly. But this one, game death was the entire
point. So guess what happened? They ran out of money to pay for server
hosting so they shut the game down prematurely. So, the ONE GAME that wanted to die couldn’t do it the way it intended. Its creative vision was compromised BECAUSE
of Games as a Service. Thus, as far as I know, games as a good has
NEVER hurt creativity. Let’s look at that chart again. Does this chart look like it’s strangling
creativity? But let’s say it somehow was. Is that one game being allowed to die not
worth making rules for all others? I don’t think so. “If the law was enforced on Games as a
Service” “it would negatively affect a lot of companies” “that would have to go back and change their
games. And they may not be able to do that.” I consider the current situation so bad that I would accept that any laws on this,
not apply retroactively. If I can save all the games of the future for
the price of a hundred or so games today that’s a devils bargain I can live with. Now it’s not like I have any power to
compromise WITH. I’m just talking on a pure conceptual level.
I want every base covered. This is such a black and white issue to me. I don’t want to leave any room for people
going “Oh, it’s so hard to come up with a rule for
this.” “I guess it’s impossible to do anything
about it.” No, I want clear rules for any scenario. In fact, if I miss one, come at me, I’ll
straighten you out. “What about free or free to play games?” Well if a game is truly free, no money
involved I’d say the law doesn’t apply, nor should
it. That would hurt creativity. People will want to experiment with concepts
and throw bad experiments out sometimes. There doesn’t need to be a higher
responsibility on the person if they’re just messing around. It’s once they start taking money for that that they’re entering legal territory, and
just a higher responsibility in general since then their actions start affecting
others. Now “free to play games,” games that are free
but you can also buy extra items or features those are easy. Treat them like any other
commerical game. If you buy a virtual sword in a game then the game shuts down, so you can no
longer access it it’s been taken from you, your property
rights have been infringed upon. Hence the need to treat it like the good it
is, so you can keep what you paid for. “Making a server emulator work on another
system is a lot of work.” “Developers can’t be expected to do that.” Well, that’s why I presented the “minimum
effort options” here. See, the situation is so bad right now I found a way to lower my standards even
futher. I used to think these were the only ways
for a company to not commit fraud for a Games as a Service shut down. But wouldn’t you know it, that minimum
effort solution sort of qualifies too. If a developer provides THIS, then the game
enters “possible to repair” territory. Which I still don’t think is great, but, I
can live with that. And again, this is anywhere from under an
hour, to a few days of work. If that is still just too much work
for you to handle then you shouldn’t be selling Games as
a Service. Laws enforcing games as goods would
negatively affect games that get shutdown temporarily, but then
come back up. Good point! I agree with you! That’s why I
think a grace period is quite reasonable. If a game is shut down for a couple months but then comes right back up so buyers can
play it again, that’s acceptable. I think what the appropriate time period is,
is debateable however, I consider “NEVER” an unacceptable
answer. “Requiring companies to give players a chance
to play their games upon shutdown” “is overreach, and an infringement on
business rights.” The whole idea behind a perpetual
software license is the business is giving up a tiny bit of
its rights, in exchange for money. It’s the customer paying the business, not
the other way around. What’s actually happening is overreach
from the business. They’re trying to take back rights that
they SOLD. If I were to sell you a car, and then later
steal it, and drive it back to my lot we wouldn’t say I’m “protecting my rights” we would say I robbed you. “You’re just being an idealist. Things break
down or go bad all the time” “games are no different.” Yes they are. Video games are code. Numbers. Games are more like stories. BOOKS go bad, STORIES don’t, unless we
let them. Hey there’s this story called The Odyssey. It’s pretty good, it’s about 3,000 years old though it’s only been published for
2400 years. When’s that one supposed to go bad by? But you know what, that’s not a game, so
how about, Go? That one’s two and a half thousand
years old. People still play it. So, no, this doesn’t apply to games. See, I have to point this out because some
people just don’t get it. Cheese goes bad, car tires go bad math equations, do not. Again, there’s a real narrative pushing
back against this. Just to pick on someone, take a look at
this article. Eliot here argues that all these online
games are going to get shut down. He’s right about that. Then, he tries to argue that this is
“welcome” and “inevitable”. Well, no, that’s wrong. He then compares game shutdowns to TV
shows ending, like Star Trek. I’m guessing if he took a logic class in
school, he didn’t get top marks. See, here’s the difference Eliot people can still watch those TV shows today,
because they were preserved. If no one today could ever watch Star Trek
again then yes, that would be a solid analogy. What he’s actually arguing here is development and support on a game
eventually ends. YES, that’s why an end of life plan is
necessary! Their shutdown is inevitable their destruction is NOT. There are people playing Star Wars Galaxies
right now even though that game was officially shut
down over seven years ago. Do you think those people accepted the
ending back in 2011? Now that’s only possible because a developer
illegally leaked code to the game but it just goes to show a game ending
is not inevitable at all. Now I don’t think Eliot here is a bad faith
actor, I think he just doesn’t know any better and it’s unfortunate he’s also a game
journalist because then he influences others to buy
in to the misinformation. This is exactly how a constructed narrative
works. Go read The Odyssey Eliot, maybe something
will click in your brain. “What you are proposing is outrageous” “because it would require companies to give
up their intellectual property” “and they cannot release their game without
losing their trademark.” Okay, I pointed out earlier that the
perpetual license in no way entitles the buyers to the
intellectual property rights. All they get is that single instance of it. I was never arguing that rights holders
should lose their IP. That’s actually the whole point, people with
perpetual licenses have rights also. As for trademark companies can still protect their trademark,
and release an unsupported game. They just have to be in front of it, and
define the terms. As an example, Grand Theft Auto, a
commercial game has been released for free, multiple times by
Rockstar, and they no longer support that game. Do you honestly think Rockstar lost the
rights and trademark to the Grand Theft Auto franchise because
of that? I think they have some money invested into
that one. Using trademark as an excuse to kill a game,
means the company is operating irresponsibly. That’s the point here, if the company wants
to solve a problem, they can if they don’t, there’s infinite excuses. Not good excuses, but, excuses nonetheless. “You say games are goods, but old arcades
were services” “so there IS a historical precedent for this!” See, I knew you were gonna say that. Well let’s go back to that service list
again. With arcades, you had one of these first
two criteria. Maybe you played the game until you died, or
played until three minutes were up. It depended on the game. And for SURE arcades had real limits. There were machines with space age
technology that weighed 300 pounds! And hey, if you really wanted to you could BUY the arcade machine as a GOOD
and preserve it! Oh sure it costs thousands of dollars, but
that goes back to the real world limits. It’s just not the same thing at all. In fact, arcade machines only PROVE the
point. ARCADES mostly died off, but the GAMES
survived. “You keep mentioning the law, and need for
law enforcement, but this isn’t necessary.” “Companies just need to be convinced
preserving games is in their interest” “and customers need to make conscientious
buying decisions.” Listen, we tried it your way already, it
didn’t work! For decades, this wasn’t an issue for the
vast majority of games! Nobody was enforcing laws on Games as a
Service because almost nobody was doing it! Great! That’s not what’s happening now. We’re seeing large percentages of blockbuster
titles engaged in Games as a Service. Why should we try to convince companies not
to do something when they’re the ones that created the
problem in the first place? The companies that CAN be convinced, aren’t
the ones doing this! Remember, this absolute minimum effort
solution, could take under an HOUR! But even I have to admit, that still takes
SOME effort. Killing games requires NO effort. I’ve heard people say before that companies
would be happy to preserve games if they could just be convinced that it’s
more profitable. Well you know those people running shell
games on the street that are scams? They’re asking you to pick a cup, when the
ball is actually in their pocket? I’m sure THEY would be happy to run an
honest game if you could convince them that was more
profitable than scamming people. But the thing about fraud, is that it already
has an excellent profit-to-work ratio. A maximum one even. Customers are not going
to convince companies that honest business is more profitable than fraud, because, it’s
usually NOT. But I think law enforcement could convince
them. But hey, prove me wrong, maybe the industry
will see the error of its ways and stop killing games before any of this
ever goes to court. But do you really want to bet on the
industry policing itself? Really? I’ll bet against you. Hit me up, my email’s at the end of this
video. “What about streaming only games?” Streaming only games are ones you can
ONLY play through a video feed it’s the only way. So forget everything that was shown in that
body and brain chart. Streaming only games is like you’re watching
all that through a window You have NOTHING then. At this point in time, these are mostly
prototypes, but, they’re coming. However, it’s the same thing as before. If
they’re under a subscription license then, all I have is the preservation argument
not to destroy history. I’m not sure there’s any legal standing. But if they’re under perpetual licenses
and you BUY the streaming games? Yep, back to fraud. That’s why we need to challenge this NOW,
BEFORE this becomes the norm. And that also means they’ll have to release a
LOT more than this in order to let customers “repair” their game
after shutdown. “You are pushing to enforce laws on games
as goods” “but won’t that lead to companies declaring
everything as a service” “with a subscription fee and getting around
it that way?” That IS a risk but you know what, we’ve been there before,
and saw how it turned out. In the early to mid 2000’s, almost every MMO
game was subscription only. Well guess what happened? Almost all of them either failed, or went to
a different payment model. Only a FEW survived on subscription fees. So if every company goes to a subcription
model, most are going to fail because gamers aren’t going to be eager to
have five different game bills a month. I think the economics of this aren’t going to
work out for companies to do this exclusively and they know it. That’s why Games as a Service exist. They’re pretending to be services while they’re really goods and they’re evading the responsibilities
of both! “What about delisted games?” Delisted games are games you can’t buy
online anymore, or sometimes at all. I have mixed feelings on those. On one hand I of course want people to be able
to play games that they’re interested in. On the other hand I don’t think it’s reasonable
to force companies to sell their games if they don’t want to. There’s nothing fraudulent about what
they’re doing, so all I have is the preservation argument. And again, this comes back to me wanting to
stay black and white on this issue And I am LASER FOCUSED on not killing games. Maybe once we solve that, I can care more
about other areas like this. “What about games that are updated all the
time” “so the early version is very different than
the later version?” “Isn’t it unreasonable for developers to
preserve each version?” That COULD take a lot more work, yes. Which is why I’m willing to compromise on
this too. I would consider ANY working verison of the
game, as adequate compensation for the buyer. Now of course it’d be nicer to have each
version available. But again, I want to leave NO EXCUSES not to provide customers with a working
copy of the game. So if the company can only provide “1.0,”
and not “3.6,” whatever. ANYTHING, is better than NOTHING. We’re getting WAY TOO MUCH “nothing” right
now. “I don’t care if old games aren’t preserved,
because I only play new games.” Fine. Then you shouldn’t care if laws get
enforced on the old ones! Although sometimes, they’re not that old! Anyway, this shouldn’t affect you. You can go back to sleep. “This guy challenged EA in court on how his
game should last longer and lost” “therefore you don’t have rights on your
games.” This case was arguing the multiplayer portion
of his game should last longer and it ended up being sent to arbitration,
which is notorious for siding with businesses and the records were kept private. He could have been arguing the case on
completely different grounds than what I’ve been making that wouldn’t
hold up in court. We don’t know what happened, and whatever
did happen, is not the law of the land. This is also a perfect example of why legal
strategy matters. If you go into the wrong court, with the
wrong argument, you lose! “I found a ruling in the UK that says
perpetual licenses aren’t perpetual” “so you’re wrong.” First, this was only in the UK. Second, the perpetual part was more in
reference to its usage in the contract and the fact that it was referring to 10
years to begin with means it wasn’t a perpetual contract in the
first place. So that’s just a really odd interpretation
that may not apply specifically to software. Third, the European Union High Court ruling
on perpetual licenses supercedes this one. Maybe Brexit will shake things up, but even
then, it will still just be the UK. “If companies release information about
their servers” “this means other games they’re hosting with
the same software could be hacked.” I asked that developer about this and he said in either of these scenarios this doesn’t give a hacker enough information
to hack another game that he couldn’t get without it anyway. But even if he’s wrong, I kind of want to
say “too bad.” At some point, a company should take
responsibility for its actions. And that’s how I feel about most of these
counterarguments. They’re excuses. They’re excuses not to do what everybody in
gaming should know is needed. This right here, it NOT the end of the world. Somehow, companies found a way to make
thousands of games in the past and NOT destroy them. It’s necessary to go back to that. And it’s cheap! See, companies are going to fight us all the
way on this, because, you know customers are the enemy. But THIS is what they care about. THIS is their gravy train. And preserving games doesn’t need to
interfere with that! If I could get companies to understand
ONE THING it’s that THIS is gonna be WAY CHEAPER
than any litigation. I don’t expect them to GET that message,
but I wanted to say it. All I want here is the absolute BARE MINIMUM
of responsibility, to not kill games. Just the tiniest bit my GOD. And finally we’re done! So what now? Well, I didn’t make this video for my health. This isn’t some TED Talk where I say
something positive and then everybody acts like the problem’s
solved. No, I made this to actually get something
done. At this point, I’ve taken things as far as
I can on my own so this video is an SOS for HELP, to take
things further. If you think you can help with ending this
practice, let me know. Here’s my email. I probably need people like lawyers, or law
students especially in consumer law, activist
organizers, or anyone with connections to organizations that could actually get the ball rolling
on this. Here, I made cheat sheets of all the
important stuff I discussed in the video. I’ll make this, and key information you might
want available as a download link also. I think there might be some meat on some of
the legal precedents but we need them to be examined and ruled on. Here’s a few more ideas I had about possible
places to start. And the thing to realize is, we don’t need
to win all battles to win the war. Say we can’t make any progress at all in
the United States but we can in the European Union, and
Australia. Well that could be enough to make companies
add end of life plans globally because then that will be cheaper than
facing fines or lawsuits. Anyway, I don’t know what to do with this
information who to contact, what the procedure is, I’m
a layman. It’s a miracle I was able to put this
together as it is. My most valuable function in all this, is as
a mascot to get people fired up in the right
direction. Yeah, like that! That could be me! Somebody else needs to figure out how to
use this. Maybe an agency says they could help, but
they need enough public interest first. Well then I’ll be right back up here
telling everybody to contact them. Or, maybe all that’s needed is some legal
person submitting the right documents to the right
offices. I’m trying to pull people out of the ether who have more of a clue how to push this
forward than I do. I said at the beginning that I’m declaring
war on Games as a Service. That’s true but this is retaliatory. The games industry itself has declared a
war on ownership against the consumer for years now. And they’re winning. We’re seeing the industry act with UTTER
IMPUNITY on this. At the time of this video, a new era is
starting. Stadia has been announced with
streaming-only exclusive games meaning you’ll never be able to preserve
those, it’s impossible. Not even that 0.1% chance. And they’re not alone. So many companies are tripping over themselves
to do streaming games just like that. The games industry is SO EAGER to take away
the concept of consumer ownership. And that means these games are going to
get destroyed. This is like something out of a science
fiction story to me and yet, here we are! Now I’m as cynical a person as you’re going
to find on this topic and even I am seeing a chance to change this. The law could be our ally on this, we don’t
know. The problem is, the law has been UTTERLY
ASLEEP at the WHEEL regarding the games industry so we have to wake the law up. We’re gonna lose for sure if it keeps on
sleeping. Even if it’s against us, there is NO
DOWNSIDE to getting the law involved. The situation has gotten THAT BAD. Because of that I’m only interested in plans where the end
game is some sort of legal process. I think that’s our only chance. I don’t think…changing consumer habits
will work. In fact I saw a quote before that said
something like “Anytime someone says the solution to a
problem is to ‘vote with your wallet'” “I know that cause is doomed.” That really reflects my own views as well. I think legislation COULD work but, I also see that as almost impossible. I have no power. If I was a multi-millionaire and could hire
lobbyists to push this through Congress yeah that could work. But, that’s not me. But getting judges SOMEWHERE to interpret
EXISTING laws? That at least seems possible. I care about games not being killed, but
I’m not gonna fight this forever there are other things I’d rather be doing. But I either need this practice to stop or else I need to be DEFEATED. I need to have high courts come down and say games will NEVER be protected,
before I can give this up. This is just “Phase One”. Informing people
and the SOS for help. “Phase Two” is to wake the law up. We need knowledgable people for that part. Now if you want to help, but don’t have any
particular knowledge on this well then you’re in the same boat I am. We’re just gonna have to wait and see who
reaches out. Believe me, I’ll let you know if we need
your help. In the meantime, the only advice I have is making noise on this certainly won’t
hurt. Just getting gamers to understand that they
legally DO own their games isn’t a bad start. I’m still impressed by that post explaining
it. And you’re welcome to use my chart. It’s
nice and simple. In fact you can take anything I’ve said in
this video, and use it however you want. That’s fine. Maybe more noise will help, maybe it won’t
matter that’s large scale zeitgeist manipulating
stuff, I don’t know how to do that. I’m single issue here. Stop killing games. Stop it. [“STOP IT!”] Stop it. [“STOP IT!”] Stop it. [“STOP IT!”] [music] [Subtitles by Generic-User, quality control
editing courtesy of danielsangeo] [“This needs to stop!”]

Only registered users can comment.

  1. I realize this is long and more boring than my usual stuff, but I encourage anyone interested to watch the ending 1:10:00

  2. I'm grateful for the incredibly positive discussion you've generated on what is a contentious issue, kudos bro! (clickbait-y title helped, needed to make a statement, but not really misleading dw). Watched the YT Law video and I like how he really gets your primary concern with this issue. I hope this helps to make direly needed changes within the industry. I've been playing a MOBA for almost 5 years, couple of times a week, and it doesn't help my enjoyment learning that it could simply shut down if it stops being profitable with almost certainly no intention of releasing the rights/code online or even selling it to another company.

  3. I just delivred on-line only game that is free and has no micro transactions or any other methodes of payment. I've made it because I wanted such game to exits. I own the servers and i'm the only one in control of them. Is my game a bad "Game as a service" because of that?

  4. Greetings Ross, I know this will might be a missed opportunity and concern that would've made it into this video, but I can emphasize that certain companies like Valve Corporation is more than capable of not only creating their own servers, but also making dedicated server programs that comes along with the games also. For example, you know Team Fortress 2? Well, the community is capable of creating their own servers with the aforementioned programs and as the ice cream on top, they can modify them to add some additional features to them, which in my opinion, can not only be a genius idea for all companies to come up with, but this can ALSO, possibly counteract the negative outcome of games as a service practices destroying games. But would that by any chance work, and would that be considered a genius idea to you? You're free to reply to this comment or hey, add this to a possible follow up video to the "Games as a service" is fraud video itself. I would personally be overjoyed to put it that way.

  5. If you turned this video into a game and did a shot everytime he says "Games as a Service" then not only is GAAS fraud, but you're probably dead.

  6. We finally get a legal argument against this bullshit, then every damn publisher decides “Hey, let’s just put all our games behind a subscription service! That way there’s no legal argument for when we decide to shut one of them down!”

    Corporations no longer see the point to actually selling us something, why would they when they could just charge you every month for the privilege of using it?

  7. This is why I think Sonic Runners Revival is completely legal and Sega couldn't do anything about it even if they wanted to. (and that if Sega tried to take it down, they might instead end up either having to refund their customers or help YPwn with bringing back Sonic Runners) (Although Sonic Runners was free to play, it had microtransactions, so people did pay for stuff in Sonic Runners)

  8. I don't have a soapbox, but nothing stopped me from dropping a link and a brief explanation in an obscure reddit that "only" a few hundred randos will see.

  9. I found this video to be a thought provoking discussion that delves into the heart of ownership and what that means to tomorrows gaming industry. While I would support the need to evolve and update what gaming means, I think the general conclusion (here) is that there's a hardline view towards profitability only and gamer experience zilch. Whether or not one owns what they buy in this instance, EULAs and DRM still control that access, and adding the pay-to-play and that becomes another barrier as well. If enough people (and I say if loosely) bandied together and told these companies to jog on, maybe the message can resonate in voting with our wallets, and to a lessor extent chose to not engage in this fallacy. Thanks for sharing.

  10. https://gizmodo.com/ebooks-purchased-from-microsoft-will-be-deleted-this-mo-1836005672

    Books as a service.

  11. I remember trivia type games that were sort of like YouTube's live chat feature, that allowed you to play rounds of trivia by the minute. That was from back when the internet was still text based, and they charged by the minute to your phone service(land line of course). They looked a lot like the screen 0:00:40

    Didn't MS brick some of their Office software to where you had to buy a yearly license if you wanted to continue using it? Phone services do something similar, but I can understand that, except for the ones that lock your phone so you can only use it on their network.

    This is a long ass video, so I'm out at 23:00:00

  12. And help end this practice? HAHAHAHAHA! I'd be lucky if anyone even sees this comment…because if nobody does (or cares), that illustrates my point of just how powerless I am to DO anything about the crisis. Because me yelling to court would be the same way. Who would hear it? And even if someone hypothetically DOES, nobody will care.
    And if a guy who has 250k subscribers can't get the right help, what hope would a NOBODY who has TWO subscribers have? I care, but damnit, I'm trapped in an isolation bubble.

  13. I feel like the whole bike tire explanation would work more, if instead of changing the bike tire, you had to manufacture your own bike tire. But that’s still probably easier than making the software.

  14. So, I'm not scrolling through every comment to see if this has been mentioned before, but as a small addendum to your list of GaaS that refunded or made options of continuing to play the game an option:

    When Final Fantasy XI ended support for Xbox 360 and PS2, they technically did provide an option to continue playing the game by playing it on PC, without requiring an additional software purchase to play the PC version. Granted, that did require having a PC to run it on (which XI could basically be run on a potato) so I guess qualifies it for more of a "half-point" since it didn't make the game playable on the console players were using before the discontinuation.

    Edit: Grammar

  15. I'm thinking of Path of Exile. As far as devs go, Grinding Gear Games are pretty stand-up guys. Here's the thing, it's a free-to-play game that is entirely funded by cosmetics, gift packages (e.g. music from new expansions and other merch) and account privileges like extra character slots and stash space. There's no pay to win. The fan following is large enough that I think even after the game expires, there will be player-run servers. And if anything, I think GGG would be more than happy to accommodate them or turn a blind eye.

    So what's the product here? Is it the client itself? They've given away for free anyway. What about the account? Do we own the microtransactions we've bought or what? And wouldn't fan mods simply enable all those for features for free anyway? What is proprietary? Is it the server-side coding that they've never put up for free anyway and allowed free use of? Do they have any fiduciary responsibility to just give back accounts that's being stored on a server somewhere?

  16. I've gotten as far as 18:00 now. Your argument is interesting but I think it's flawed: They don't destroy the product you bought or remove your access to it, they just withdraw a service associated with it.

    I agree it's a shitty situation to be in, but if you manage to get a private server running then you still have your game just fine.

    Ultimately I doubt any consumers are unaware that a server dependent game might one day shut down, and buying such a game is potentially a legit decision: They might not want to play the game for more than a set period of time, and might not care about revisiting it. Alternately, maybe they do care, but the limited window of game experience is still worth the price for them.

    Personally I don't like such a business model so I don't buy them.

  17. I think one point that kind of gets glossed over is that companies don't kill games because they don't want to invest some nominal amount of work for an "End of Life" plan. They kill the games because keeping the games alive, even if few people are still playing them, leaves a form of competition open for themselves. I personally think it makes terrible business sense, but you know someone in a game publisher's conference room somewhere is selling the idea of killing off their own offerings to force consumers to purchase the new offerings.

  18. I feel like paying more attention to the licence agreement next time I download a game.
    What about F2P games ? Do you own a game that is free to begin with ?
    I see most F2P games as a store. You can go to the store for free, browse around and not buy anything. But the store displays their nice clothes and gadgets and will entice you to buy something.
    Again you don't have to buy anything but it's right there in your face.

  19. Darkspore was online only. Because the servers were shut down, it is impossible to play. There are no mods that get around it, private servers do not work, and EA has already repurposed the server so no one can acquire the server data needed to set up a working private server. This is the final fate of all games as a service.

  20. 24:30 oh like car manufacturers. i could be wrong, but i think toyota still has the best or how i shall say, least planned obsolescence.

  21. Corpos will NEVER release documentation for server or the server itself cause once GrindFest X is released, GrindFest X-1 becomes a competetion for the new game and should be closed to make people spend money in a new game. If the problem escalates, publishers will just add some guaranteed uptime (e.g. month) and further – at the discretion of the publisher (in practice – till the game closes). This uptime will be the only change that will make GAAS a real service.

  22. What if I get banned from an online only game preventing me from ever playing it again? Can they do that?

  23. 1:06:41 That argument might have been valid 20 years ago but since 'git' was popularized it can't stand anymore. Any development team worth it's salt will be sure to use a file sharing system that implements version control element (be it git or anything else) and with those systems it takes about no effort to rebuild an old version of a game.

  24. this is the best video on youtube and honestly i will watch it again every time a live service game comes out

  25. Am I mad? or just Entitled?

      I believe this infectious idea has permeated further beyond the reach of just games. Since it is such a profitable and effective business model, many corporations have applied this dystopian inclined perspective to all aspects of their products. Anything, absolutely anything at all that can be considered a "Service" that was previously, and logically, assumed to be just an extension of usage brought on by the intuitiveness of the purchaser has been forcibly given a price tag because "It was something we made, why shouldn't we get paid for it?"
    El Dorado, the remake of the Halo 3 multiplayer for PC, was shut down after it set the community on fire with its release, giving back to the players a perfect experience of days gone. It far overshadowed Halo 5's multiplayer base at the time. Couldn't have that, could we? They may complicate that matter with jargon relating to creative property rights and the like, but the announcement shortly there after of the Master Chief Collection coming to PC can almost be guaranteed as a response to the popularity generated by the effort of a hard working team working in the honor of good games.
    This was just an example to stay on games. Many aspects of life now are becoming like this, many form of entertainment as well. I have always questioned retail prices of products when compared to the price that stores actually buy the product for. It's usually double the producers price or some arbitrary percentage, made by some math and logistics nut that was about to get fired from his 50k a year salary job if he didn't pump out some more guidelines that would increase performance by some, again, arbitrary percentage (Even the convenience of the location of the store is taken into account, I'm not exaggerating) As far as profit is concerned, it's understandable why you would bump up the price. What I'm speaking of is the small bits in between the producer and distributing outlet, the middlemen that are also out there to make a profit from both ends, which is again understandable, but the aforementioned number nut that is about to lose his job is taking everything possible into account. Each end of the sale, from producer to consumers, money is being asked for, money is being lost, so that money needs to made up some how. This is when the poisonous idea of entitlement starts to permeate through the business, thinking themselves above the consumer, that we are lucky that we have received these products of quality that they have found for them; Thus, they charge more. It works though, and there's nothing illegal about it, people still pay for it and accepting this truth that they should be thankful. The problem begins when it works too well, when other businesses start taking notice and start doing the same thing, INCLUDING the middlemen, and everyone begins to think "I should be thankful for the quality products provided to me, so I will pay more."
    It's as you said, Ross, It's like a Sci-Fi movie. We've all drank the Kool-Aid and replaced the human experience with Services. Adventure has been replaced by controlled conditions, committee approved experiences, and fanatically financial based production decisions that make the price (And the demanded respect from producing such) un-fucking-believable. What's even more frightening is that employees are starting to believe that their own jobs are a service, graciously provided by those employing them. I wonder how that mindset began.

    I wish I could say I was just over exaggerating all this, and I completely understand if this just sounds like the ramblings of a madman/conspiracy theorist. I don't have sources, I just have what I've heard, what I've experienced, and what I've connected in years of isolation. Managers trust me, they talk to me about their plans for "Their Store" They always call it their store, even when they have almost no authority over it, it makes me laugh. They always tell me their thoughts on advertisement placement and how they "Need to sell as much to the customer as they can before they leave" by placing products and ads in very particular places. It's a common business practice that plays off of the psychological fear of forgetting something important or missing out on something big (Don't even get me started on the fucking bullshit of corporations influencing our psychology, the way we fucking THINK, to get us to want to buy more.) Furthermore, I was a little shit child, still lie to my parents about my doings, and 4X games have given me some good ideas on how to do shady things while remaining within the good graces of other factions. With that said: It scares the ever living shit out of me when I see companies doing shady shit and getting away with it with similar "Diplomacy" tactics as my own and eerily similar, positive, results.
    This is effecting everything, man, even the way we perceive. All I have to say is someone better Emperor of Humanity this shit back into order. I can once this stupid depression thing passes over and I get back on this advancement in nuclear power dream. But hey… Scientific Advancement is a service.

  26. Okay , so i own a lot of games from the nineties and naughties , and then the new windows version says : screw you , i won't do this one no more .

    Somehow all this decay resembles the universal tendency towards increased enthropy : everything that is , will eventually evaporate .

    I am very very grateful to conservationists like the source porters that keep games like Doom and Quake and Morrowind available on new platforms , and i guard my ancient PCs and CDs with care and minefields and guns , so i maintain access to my Gems of the Golden Era .

    I don't believe in service games : they are only in it for the money . I believe in games that were – and still are being – made with passion . Money and Greed are not my friends .

  27. I like how he changes the thumbnail just because of the criticism of his face making others think he looks stupid, I guess Youtube bots really did striked his video this time! xD

  28. Sees Lego Universe

    God, Ross, why must I be reminded?

    But on a happier note, some modders are working on getting the game running again. For how long? Who knows.

  29. Can I point something out? Type "games as a service is" in the Youtube searchbar. What are the results?
    Result 1: games as a service is not fraud
    Result 2: games as a service is fraud response
    Result 4: games as a service is still not fraud
    Tellingly, NONE of the results are "games as a service is fraud".
    Given the popularity of this video and lack of popularity of the other such videos, I believe there is no reasonable way we can write this off as merely a mistake of the algorithm. This video is being buried intentionally and people are instead being redirected towards opposition sources.

  30. I had no idea who you were until around 3:06 when you said "ok, looks like i'm going to have to do this myself".The voice was unmistakable on that line.I clicked on your channel because i was 99% sure you were the mind of freeman guy at that point. was kindof surreal. never thought i'd see you in the flesh. never wanted to.

  31. Star wars galaxies was always on a monthly sub from launch to sever shutdown just btw. you fucking liar. 4% my ass

  32. What about F2P GaaS? Curious if they would be considered fraud like Total Domination. a game that requires you have to interact with others and if the server were to be shut down you could never play it ever again but you never paid to play it unless you paid for in-game monetization?

  33. Check this. Doom 1, 2 and 3 is just released for the Nintendo Switch, Sony PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. They added DRM, and you need a bethesda account and be online to play… they also removed the non DRM doom from xbox live.

  34. By all means regard this comment as hyperbole but I believe this is one of the most important videos for gamers to understand their consumer rights. Everyone who cares about such things should watch this.

  35. Now that I think about it. Isn't Google Stadia technically illegal to, maybe in a difference sense. You have to pay for for a service to use it and THEN have to pay for full priced games and if you can't keep up with the charges you lose access to your games? Even though you paid for the game. They try to claim the are like Xbox but Xbox you can save your games to a hard drive and play offline. So technically google is cutting you off from a product you paid to use.

  36. If Half-Life and Source engine were a service then Ross could not make his outstanding machinimas and such beautiful backgrounds in this video, that's why games should always be preserved for people to use and improve them. It's difficult to imagine how much content we would lose (games, mods, maps, machinimas e.t.c.) if Source engine was restricted like that and shut down.

  37. Of course games are art it takes time skill effort and devotion and imagination to make great games, same criteria for a drawing painting sculpture or any other work of art.

  38. People can come up with a bullshit rationalization for anything to fit their ideology, it doesn't matter if it's nonsense, as long as it sounds good, the rationalization will always win to these people.

    A lot of times it's better to just go on your gut instinct, not everyone is a philosopher who can refute all of their fallacious arguments. Like a wise man once said: it takes 10 seconds to tell a lie, it takes 10 minutes to refute it.

    People should just stick to certain principles and not let ideology or religion interfere with those. Genocide is always wrong, end of discussion. Authoritarianism is always wrong, end of discussion. Putting children in concentration camps is always wrong, end of discussion. Destroying culture is always wrong, end of discussion.

  39. If I could only choose one person who I'd want in a courtroom standing up against games as a service, it would be Ross.

  40. Ahhh.. the ending credit song is from Teenagent, a game of my childhood. I knew it sounds familiar. CD Projekt product. Thank you for this, it takes me back…

  41. The solution for now is to avoid Games as a Service like the plague. If a game you want depends on external servers to run: DONT BUY THEM/DONT SPEND MONEY ON THEM.

  42. Look at halo ce were still playing online servers have been down for ages that was the end of the golden age of gaming, and I back you 100% on this subject

  43. I learned my lesson with my 2nd gen ipod. My last consoles were PS2 and Gamecube because I can't stand having to buy extra dlc and broken at launch/ needs a patch games.

  44. It's not just games, much of this concerns a lot of modern software, and I'm not even talking the browser-based hosted kind, no. Think heavy DRMs essentially acting as "game servers", severely limiting offline use and overall longevity; often times without even providing any features for the consumers whatsoever.

  45. How the hell doesn't this have a million views yet? I swear Google is suppressing information here since they don't want their Stadia console to fail.

  46. I am surprised you didn't mention the fact that "games as a service" is being used more and more often as an excuse to release games that are unfinished at best and completely broken at worst. They're sold with a "road map" that is a supposed to be a promise to the player, but it doesn't need to be honored at all on the part of the developer. As soon as the game stops being profitable (usually because it is not selling enough microtransactions) the "road map" is changed or outright thrown out by the developers and the game dies.

    Allowing players to host their own servers for multiplayer-enabled games from the get-go really solves most of these problems. Games like CoD4 (the old version, not the HD remaster) and Black Ops 1 shipped with a server browser and supported players standing up their own game servers with their own rules, and are still enjoyed to this day. In the modern games like Black Ops 2/3/4, the multiplayer will die whenever Activision decides to stop supporting the matchmaking service and the servers. This could be avoided if they just put in a server browser.

  47. My favorite part of this video so far is the sick Aardwolf footage at 0:39.
    Note: I have watched up to 0:41 so far.

  48. 18:30 you say that companies destroy my product by shutting down the servise but I can still launch the game and watch menu and sometimes change options. I am quite sure that ability to actually PLAY the game (walk/drive/shoot etc) is not guaranteed by the terms of use and cannot been regulated in foreseeable future.

    For example, what about Halloween events in conditional Rainbow Six? Do developers destroy a part of my product when they turn an event off? Like, I paid for the game, why can't I get access to this part of game whenever I want? Isn't it like someone has restricted access to the bathroom in my own house?

  49. Sure, but your average gamer is either too stupid to understand this or else just flat out doesn't care enough to do anything about it.

  50. I think it is the most painful for the developers. 1000s of hours of development time. Sleepless nights. Then the publisher shuts down the server because it isn't super popular anymore. That hurts.

  51. 22min you can’t both have to ”repair” the game and also ve forbidden to modify it by the eula. The abillity to modify your own thing only exist if games are considered to be goods but if they are a service you may be forbidden to modify it.

  52. In Australia, a good place to start is an organization called Choice. They've got some teeth in the consumer rights game.

  53. 0:09 – "I do not know what the Origin is." –Ross Scott, 2019
    To be fair, neither does EA. My best guess is: something between a train-wreck and an abortion.

    😀

  54. before i continue watching.. when i hear " games as a service " i think of someone presenting a game as a product that is not finished " BUT WAIT! we are going to add so much more! " and that lie is based on a lot of ifs.
    IF the game is equitable enough (as in enough people bought into the hype train and paid for the unfinished product.)
    IF the player base is active enough to bitch about what was promised and not delivered
    IF the assholes selling the game actually even intended to complete the game instead of blaming neck beards or gamer gate for its lack of popularity and leaving the unfinished product to die on the vine..
    and IF the publisher even has the ability to deliver a finished product that in any way compares to the fanciful picture their PR team or devs themselves had been painting for the last months to years.

  55. A very good and informative video!

    I would like to share though a different definition for what a service is, it is personally preferred: services are produced the moment they are being delivered.

    Now this one is a bit more ambiguous and many companies are using it to push the idea of goods as a service. So the problem is not just video games, it just started being perceived by gamers first. Films and music are way gone with streaming services here, albeit streaming services are open to what they are. In business school this way of thought has been in comeuppance on 2012 when I studied and it may end up treating products expensive and physical like cars as a service.

    Now how can this happen? Well machines require service, or recieve firmware updates, so they can be produced, in a way, when they are being delivered, in a way! For this reason don't buy anything that is not a phone and has the word smart in front of it. Also I remember a video that I saw lately about farmers not being able to fix, tamper with or enhance their own tractors, a thing they used to do in order to satisfy their needs. This also costs for more important products bigger problems as you are shackled to the company for service needs.

    As in another of your videos this is only a small part of vastly bigger problem.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *